Favorable Exponynt: Disappointing, but the d4s didn't have the best dr either 13.3 evs vs 14.5 for the d750 and 14.8 for the d810. The just slight higher sports score doesn't justify it, so it probably has been sacrificed for faster sensor read out.
A stop of DR at base ISO for 1 fps? (Well, .8 by Bill Claff's estimate.) How does that make sense?
If I were a D4 or D4s user I'd be holding on to it - and hoping the D500 has a Sony sensor.
I really like the point about lenses serving different purposes in DX and FX systems. As a dedicated Nikon DX supertelephoto wildlife shooter my 300 f2.8 VR lens is my all around supertelephoto lens, my 500 f4 AF-S is my really long lens. Put these lenses on an FX camera and the 500 f4 becomes the all around supertelephoto and I would need a 600 f4 or 800 f5.6 for that really long lens.
But I'm weakening regarding a split system. The vey fact that a lens can serve different purposes in an FX and DX system might mean, for some of us, that a split system is the optimal solution. The new 400 f2.8 E FL VR in conjunction with a D810 is capable of resolution far in excess of what I can get with a 300 f2.8 VR and D7100. And used with TCs and the D7100 it could outperform my 500 f4 as a really long lens in most situations. But the extra kilogram concerns me for hand holding. Perhaps a new 500 E, which likely would weigh the same as a 300 f2.8 VR could serve as the pivot of a split system.
pwilly: This lens and a 1.4 TC in the bag makes both a 300 and a 420. If it is as sharp as the existing 300 its a win, win!
MTF looks good, much better than the old lens.
The 300 f4 is only part of the package Nikon: now we need a serious action oriented DX camera to mount it on.
JimPearce: Wow! Captive animals and baiting in one video.
I don't recall mentioning morality, and I agree that moral judgements (including yours) are subjective. My own position is more existential/ontological - I don't get the thrill of the hunt on a game farm nor do I accept the implicit description of this activity as wildlife photography. I do think it's a convenient way to test the camera.
Wow! Captive animals and baiting in one video.
Pat Cullinan Jr: <quote>should provide the depth-of-field control and low-light image quality on an APS-C DSLR that you'd get using an F2.8 zoom on 35mm full-frame.</quote>
The aperture of a lens is quite independent of the format of the film or sensor. In other words, f/1.8 is f/1.8 whether the lens is placed before an APS-C sensor or a full-frame sensor. The intensity of the light striking the target is the same whether you have a small or a large target. The aperture is a function solely of the focal length and the entrance "pupil" (meaning the diameter of the circle of light you see when you look through the lens from the rear).
I hope everybody understands this, because otherwise you'll be making disadvantageous decisions or doing things wrong.
Yada, yada, yada. Of course it is a faster lens, but truly equivalent as it allows the DX shooter to shoot at an ISO just over one stop lower.
jtan163: I think I'd like one, especially for low light (would've liked to have seen some low light/night shots), but I'm not sure I can justify it.
I wonder if they'll try something in a focal length range in the short to mid tele range.
Either way it's a pretty nice time to be a photographer/camera buff/geardo.
As a DX proponent, I like the concept. I'm thinking this lens might really cook with a D7100. However, as I'm mostly a wildlife shooter I think my 17-50 f2.8 Tamron screwdriver may be "good enough".